Churches Opposed to Gay Marriage Would Be Protected from IRS Under Proposed House Republican Bill

Christian Post ^ | 07/14/2015 | Ray Nothstine

[SeekAndFind]

TWO HURDLES:

1) Obama's veto pen

2) Assuming it even gets through the veto pen, a lawsuit will be filed by the gay mafia and their supporters, which will put it on its way to the same Supreme Court that imposed gay marriage on the country in the first place.

[Biggirl]

Even if it will take going into the next Presidential administration, go for it anyways.

[MeganC]

Another hurdle will be Boehner and McConnell.

[tophat9000]

Never count on Richard Less Republican to have your back

[Vigilanteman]

Heck yes. Put the statists on the defensive for a change.

Attach it to a continuing resolution which BO will have a hard time vetoing.

[Patton@Bastogne]

all’s well, until a federal judge and SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional ...

[Vigilanteman]

Anything that delays our gallop toward Gomorrah is a good thing.

[Know et al]

Heck yes. Put the statists on the defensive for a change.
Attach it to a continuing resolution which BO will have a hard time vetoing.

You make it sound like we have a two party system./s

[Carl Vehse]

The HR 2802 bill does not provide any protection for religious institutions (churches, parochial schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, hospitals, charities, orphanages, adoption services, publishers and bookstores, etc.). It only keeps individual persons from being prosecuted, fined, or imprisoned because of a belief or action in accordance with a religious belief that homosexual "marriage" is morally wrong.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You are right. But it is worth a try. Make everyone show their hand.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

I have a bad feeling that this won’t work. The battle we can win is to get rid of all tax exemption for every organization. Tax exemption is a completely corrupt racket that mainly benefits Lib advocacy groups.

[madprof98]

Of course, we could just rely on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Oh, we couldn't . . . ?

[Raycpa]

If we have to pass a law to protect an inherent right haven’t we lost already?

[Menthops]

I do not see how this legislation would pass constitutional muster now.

Civil rights trump “religious freedom”.

[CommerceComet]

Assuming it even gets through the veto pen, a lawsuit will be filed by the gay mafia and their supporters, which will put it on its way to the same Supreme Court that imposed gay marriage on the country in the first place.

There might be a chance on this one. Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion that religious organizations aren't compelled to accept views that they oppose. Based on that, it seems likely a 5-4 decision for the good guys, this time. Of course, that assumes that when push becomes shove, Kennedy doesn't wimp out. Personally, I think that Kennedy will turn tail and run but maybe he'll surprise.

[dware]

The 1st Amendment is non-negotiable. If the 1st Amendment is threatened, it is because we are not using the 2nd Amendment for its intended purpose. We do not need more legislation (or Amendments) that will be ignored. Once we begin employing current Amendments properly, we will see there is no need for additional legislation or amendments.

[Rodamala]

Hey, nitwits! try some equal protection out and protect EVERYONE from the IRS and get rid of it altogether.

Thanks in advance.

[Ouchthatonehurt]

Just like DOMA? Okay, I think we’re safe. /sarc/

[Ouchthatonehurt]

The Law of the Land...

[Patton@Bastogne]

Remember the dredd Scott decision of 1857 ... SCOTUS is “not” the supreme law of THIS land ...